[Wikimedia-l] Apparently, Wikipedia is ugly

[Michel Vuijlsteke]

(Well obviously not millions for the design, I meant "use some of our
money". =))

On 15 July 2012 01:52, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia at zog.org> wrote:

> Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
>
> Michel
>
>
> On 15 July 2012 01:46, Richard Symonds <richard.symonds at wikimedia.org.uk>wrote:
>
>> Maybe if we ran a competition for designers to redesign the wikipedia
>> mainpage?
>>
>> Richard Symonds
>> Wikimedia UK
>> 0207 065 0992
>> Disclaimer viewable at
>> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
>> Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14 July 2012 19:24, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I do think the Wikimedia sites look dated, and very "male", too.
>> >
>> > One example I always think of when this issue comes up is Wikifashion:
>> >
>> > http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
>> >
>> > I would love for Wikipedia to have optional skins like that, made by
>> > graphic designers, just like you can have all sorts of bells and
>> whistles
>> > for your browser.
>> >
>> > Commons is another project that has a very clunky look. I mean, look at
>> > that main page. This is an image hosting project, for Christ's sake. I
>> > discussed this with Magnus Manske a few weeks ago at a meet-up, and he
>> > showed me how Flickr offers people ways to explore their new content,
>> like
>> > this for example, showcasing recent uploads:
>> >
>> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/7days/
>> > http://www.flickr.com/explore/interesting/2012/07/
>> >
>> > Here is Pinterest, which also has a real-time format visualising a flow
>> of
>> > images:
>> >
>> > http://pinterest.com/
>> >
>> > These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
>> > its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would show
>> > off its new images.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke <wikipedia at zog.org
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield <davidrichfield at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being ugly.
>> > > > To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup
>> to
>> > > > a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy. Wikipedia
>> > > > generates results which adapt to window size very gracefully without
>> > > > taking the cop-out of forcing all the content to run down the center
>> > > > of the page in a fixed size.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Okay, "ugly" was a poor choice of words. Ugly is subjective.
>> > >
>> > > Bad typography and poor layout objectively hinders readers. It slows
>> > > reading speed and reduces comprehension -- not in some vague "well
>> yeah,
>> > > that's your word against mine" way, but in an objectively
>> scientifically
>> > > measurable way.
>> > >
>> > > What Wikipedia does is not really "adapting gracefully". It's adding a
>> > > padding of 1.5em to the left and right of a block of text that spans
>> the
>> > > entire width of any available window (minus the 11em of the left
>> panel).
>> > >
>> > > There's a limit to the amount of text you can put on a line before it
>> > > becomes hard to read.
>> > >
>> > > What you're calling a "cop-out" is not a cop-out at all. The ads,
>> well,
>> > > they need to be there for The Atlantic to be able to pay the bills,
>> but
>> > > increasing the number of characters per line in the text column would
>> > *not*
>> > > make the better. To the contrary: the amount of words per line is
>> about
>> > > just right. Here, take the test yourself.
>> > >
>> > > This is the article in Wikipedia layout: http://imgur.com/xinFW
>> > > This is the article as seen on The Atlantic: http://imgur.com/WH1WT
>> > > And this is the article run through Evernote Clearly:
>> > > http://imgur.com/sH3HJ
>> > >
>> > > Anyone can see, I hope, that the Clearly (
>> http://evernote.com/clearly/)
>> > > version is by far the easiest and most comfortable to read. Bigger
>> font.
>> > *
>> > > Different* font. Contrast less harsh. Fewer characters per line.
>> Margins.
>> > > Leading. Kerning.
>> > >
>> > > It's almost funny there's no article about macrotypography on
>> Wikipedia.
>> > :)
>> > >
>> > > Michel
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>
>
>